Contemporary Dance

[PeaMcLean]

Nope.

I don't get it.

Last night went to see a double bill by a renowned company. About an hour's worth of utterly random movements with no discernible structure or meaning. Four people would come on and wiggle around a bit, then two would do a duet, then some more would come and crawl around the floor. Then the whole group would walk sternly back and forth. And so on.

Each piece had its own choreographer and were supposed to be radically different. They weren't.

Anyone a fan?

[mumofmonstaaarrrs]

i was a contemporary dancer but it does depend on whether or not you understand a peice

sometimes it os very much like random movements especially if the choreographer is relatively new. A piece by someone like Mia Michaels however and you would understand immediatly

[mumofmonstaaarrrs]

my fave from the last series of so you think you can dance

[PeaMcLean]

Definitely not a new choreographer. The first piece you linked to though had a clear theme - some sort of courtship if you like. Last night's stuff was just random. I read the programme notes which were, frankly, bollox.

I'll try and find something...

[Bink]

LOVE contemporary dance.
Done well.
Huge enormous caveat: done well. Which means good music, good ideas, precise athletic movement, exciting, unclichéd - all the obvious criteria.

So, Alvin Ailey; the Cholmondeleys & the Featherstonehaugh's adorable "Birthday" (from about 15+ years ago); Bill T Jones & Arnie Zane; some of the things Ballet Rambert has done; Michael Clark's early things (20 years ago). NOT, I'm afraid, Mark Morris, who's too much of a drag artiste for my monnaie.

[PeaMcLean]

From the programme notes by the choreographer:

"I've set out to introduce for each of the five sections a different physical idea, working from the group as a whole into the individual and personal. I'm hoping for it to be a sensual experience for the audience. I am proposing new ideas, new physical ideas. it is very physical, bold, in the dtail, and, I hope, poetic with a hint of philosophy."

I say:

There were five sections?